Difference between "const <class_name>&" and "<class_name> const&"
I am reading about the implicit copy constructor of cpp in case there is no an explicit one declared.
*From cppreference:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_constructor
I read that the typical declaration of a copy constructor is the following:
*However in the answer of this post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1810163/c-implicit-copy-constructor-for-a-class-that-contains-other-objects
I find the signature of the implicit copy constructor is like this:
where X is the name of the class
1.- What is the effect of the placement of const in the different signatures? What is constant in each case?
2.- What is the correct prototype for the implicit copy constructor?
Thanks.
*From cppreference:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_constructor
I read that the typical declaration of a copy constructor is the following:
class_name ( const class_name & )*However in the answer of this post:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1810163/c-implicit-copy-constructor-for-a-class-that-contains-other-objects
I find the signature of the implicit copy constructor is like this:
X::X(X const& )where X is the name of the class
1.- What is the effect of the placement of const in the different signatures? What is constant in each case?
2.- What is the correct prototype for the implicit copy constructor?
Thanks.
Last edited on
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.